Judge Amy Barret Confirmed As Supreme Court Justice

[Tarsonis]

damn CNN so petty they're complaining that they actually Swore her in tonight and not tomorrow.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

So what are the chances of the Court holding back from making uber-conservative decisions in order to reduce the likelyhood of packing?

I guess we’ll see. I’m sure she’ll try to test the waters soon enough.

[New haven america]

So what are the chances of the Court holding back from making uber-conservative decisions in order to reduce the likelyhood of packing?

They'll wait until Trump gets re-elected (Or decide he was the rightful winner even if he looses) and then start pretty much immediately.

[The Black Forrest]

So what are the chances of the Court holding back from making uber-conservative decisions in order to reduce the likelyhood of packing?

Hmmm? Well?

My family tends to be religious conservatives and RvW is an abomination. They like the bangbangpewpews too.

For an opportune chance to kill RvW? I think they will say go for it!

[Eukaryotic Cells]

Back in 2016 the entire Republican party had very different ideas about what was and wasn't legal.

Their argument wasn't about the legality of President Obama's nomination of Garland. It was about the procedural rules of the Senate, the role of the Senate in confirming a nominee, the division of power between the presidency and the Senate, and the proximity to elections that could resolve the division of power and offer a clear mandate to one side or the other. In the event of a Clinton win, the GOP would have likely been forced to cave and confirm Garland. But you're mischaracterizing their objection as a legal one.

McConnell was intent on continuing to block in the event of a Clinton victory, if I remember correctly. Whether or not he could have maintained party discipline is another question.

[Greed and Death]

So what are the chances of the Court holding back from making uber-conservative decisions in order to reduce the likelyhood of packing?

The triggers I could think of ( what you refer as uber conservative) things like Abortion, LGBT protection in employment, and the like wouldn't be announced until late 2022 at the earliest, and more likely 2023 or 2024.

By then putting a court packing bill on the floor could be a disaster.

Quite honestly if you are going to do the court packing thing the President needs to propose it on inauguration day.

[The Black Forrest]

damn CNN so petty they're complaining that they actually Swore her in tonight and not tomorrow.

Who was complaining?

Of course they wanted it rushed. Talking points when Trump has his next super spreader event.

[Novus America]

So what are the chances of the Court holding back from making uber-conservative decisions in order to reduce the likelyhood of packing?

Probably quite high. I seriously doubt they will make a massive sudden change of precedent. For example the might loosen the regulations Roe imposes in the states, but are unlikely to outright repeal it.

[Farnhamia]

Back in 2016 the entire Republican party had very different ideas about what was and wasn't legal.

Not really. Nobody said Obama did anything illegal. The Senate just decide not to confirm.
Again just because you can legally do something does not mean you will.

Law and political decisions are not the same thing.

They decided not even to consider the nomination and made a lot of noise about an election year and how the people should decide. If McConnell had called a vote, that would have been one thing, but of course that would have meant Obama would have another swing of the bat. In 2016, Scalia died in February, nine whole months before the election. What's different now, besides the GOP actually admitting to their hypocrisy.

[Tarsonis]

Their argument wasn't about the legality of President Obama's nomination of Garland. It was about the procedural rules of the Senate, the role of the Senate in confirming a nominee, the division of power between the presidency and the Senate, and the proximity to elections that could resolve the division of power and offer a clear mandate to one side or the other. In the event of a Clinton win, the GOP would have likely been forced to cave and confirm Garland. But you're mischaracterizing their objection as a legal one.

McConnell was intent on continuing to block in the event of a Clinton victory, if I remember correctly. Whether or not he could have maintained party discipline is another question.

Doubtful. 2016 was a gamble. Delay the hearings until after the election, and make it a a talking point. They lose, they hold the hearings for Garland and confirmed him to the bench. They win? High fives, tell Garland too bad and appoint who they want in January.


McConnell had nothing to lose and everything to gain. Was a particularly astute move on his part.

[Kowani]

"another"
You're really stretching, as if he didn't break the vast majority of his promises.

Bringing troops back home.

A thing he didn't do.

Not starting another foreign war.

I mean...yes, this was good, but considering he ramped up drone strikes, I'd say its not the point you think it was.

Crushing ISIS.

You mean riding the wave on a thing that was already in process?

Cutting taxes.

So fucking over the economy

Reducing regulations.

Whoo, more objectively bad stuff.

Building a border wall.

Yeah, all 6 miles of it. Congrats.

Reforming the VA.

Odd how Trump did things when he wasn't in office

Scrapping the TPP.

You...know the TPP still exists, right?

Renegotiating trade deals.

With the small caveat of us losing the trade war. So...whoo?

Standing up to China.

Standing up to China does not mean "cede ground to China on every issue." But that's what Trump did. Lots of talk, little results.

Getting NATO allies to pay more of their share.

Ah yes for the next time Russia invades the western half of Ukraine.

Scrapping the Iran sell-out.

The deal that was working.

Getting out of Paris.

So more objectively bad things.

Rebuilding the military.

...How?

Making us energy-independent.

Yay, coal! How's that black lung, Pennsylvania miner?

Reducing unemployment to historic lows.

That is not a policy, nor is it his fault.

Recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.

Sure, I guess?

Appointing conservative federal judges.

Yes, he did do that.

But dang, you got me. He sure did break the vast majority of his promises!

That was a propaganda line with no nuance and very little fact.
Ben Shapiro would love you!

[Novus America]

Not really. Nobody said Obama did anything illegal. The Senate just decide not to confirm.
Again just because you can legally do something does not mean you will.

Law and political decisions are not the same thing.

They decided not even to consider the nomination and made a lot of noise about an election year and how the people should decide. If McConnell had called a vote, that would have been one thing, but of course that would have meant Obama would have another swing of the bat. In 2016, Scalia died in February, nine whole months before the election. What's different now, besides the GOP actually admitting to their hypocrisy.

They did not have to though. 51 Senators could have overridden McConnell's decision.
They did not though. The law only says that the senate has to approve a nominee. It does not state there has to be a floor vote.

Sure, there absolutely is political hypocrisy. But again flip flopping on a political matter is not illegal.

Or the else again basically all politicians would be in jail.

[Galloism]

They decided not even to consider the nomination and made a lot of noise about an election year and how the people should decide. If McConnell had called a vote, that would have been one thing, but of course that would have meant Obama would have another swing of the bat. In 2016, Scalia died in February, nine whole months before the election. What's different now, besides the GOP actually admitting to their hypocrisy.

They did not have to though. 51 Senators could have overridden McConnell's decision.
They did not though. The law only says that the senate has to approve a nominee. It does not state there has to be a floor vote.

Sure, there absolutely is political hypocrisy. But again flip flopping on a political matter is not illegal.

Or the else again basically all politicians would be in jail.

I’m not seeing the problem with that result.

[Eukaryotic Cells]

McConnell was intent on continuing to block in the event of a Clinton victory, if I remember correctly. Whether or not he could have maintained party discipline is another question.

Doubtful. 2016 was a gamble. Delay the hearings until after the election, and make it a a talking point. They lose, they hold the hearings for Garland and confirmed him to the bench. They win? High fives, tell Garland too bad and appoint who they want in January.


McConnell had nothing to lose and everything to gain. Was a particularly astute move on his part.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2016/03/21/us/politics/merrick-garland-supreme-court-mitch-mcconnell.amp.html (posted an amp link to avoid the NYT paywall)
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/clinton-wins-gop-say-no-9-supreme-court

Hard to say what they would have actually done, but my money is on "continue trying to block".

[Salus Maior]

Well, here's hoping ACB leads her judgeship well.

Personally, I do like her as a person. However, I do have some reservations.

[Diahon]

remove trump by any means possible, remove the rest of the gop for a generation or till it becomes as dead a party as the whigs, pack the courts, get started with a social democratic plan for the united states while rebuilding alliances with the world's democracies asap

[Fahran]

I’m not seeing the problem with that result.

I see you're not breaking character, Darth Elmo.

[The Black Forrest]

Well, here's hoping ACB leads her judgeship well.

Personally, I do like her as a person. However, I do have some reservations.

Like what?

[MC United]

*snip*
Ben Shapiro would love you!

As an attempted insult, that falls short. As covert anti-semitism, let the reader decide.

Otherwise, since your response boils down to "Orange Man Bad!", I eagerly await your citation of the rest of that "vast majority of promises" President Trump didn't keep.

[Salus Maior]

Well, here's hoping ACB leads her judgeship well.

Personally, I do like her as a person. However, I do have some reservations.

Like what?

I think it's very important that we have people in power who on board with environmental concerns. ACB didn't seem to be very strong on that front from what I've seen.

I have a few other concerns, but to sum it up I hope that she won't be a Republican stooge.

[Washington Resistance Army]

As covert anti-semitism, let the reader decide.

Surely this is parody lol

[Diahon]

*snip*
Ben Shapiro would love you!

As an attempted insult, that falls short. As covert anti-semitism, let the reader decide.

Otherwise, since your response boils down to "Orange Man Bad!", I eagerly await your citation of the rest of that "vast majority of promises" President Trump didn't keep.

not gonna steal kowani's thunder, but the crux of the "orange man bad" quip is that, indeed, the orange man is bad -- abysmally bad

[Geneviev]

*snip*
Ben Shapiro would love you!

As an attempted insult, that falls short. As covert anti-semitism, let the reader decide.

Otherwise, since your response boils down to "Orange Man Bad!", I eagerly await your citation of the rest of that "vast majority of promises" President Trump didn't keep.

Making America great?

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

*snip*
Ben Shapiro would love you!

As an attempted insult, that falls short. As covert anti-semitism, let the reader decide.

Otherwise, since your response boils down to "Orange Man Bad!", I eagerly await your citation of the rest of that "vast majority of promises" President Trump didn't keep.

Here’s a list of what was delivered, what wasn’t and what was partially executed.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.co ... a-37982000

[Fahran]

remove trump by any means possible,

No. Let's remove him through legal and respectable means so we don't stumble into a major constitutional and political crisis.

remove the rest of the gop for a generation or till it becomes as dead a party as the whigs,

I can stomach this if we get a more conservative party to replace them and the Dems split into a centrist neoliberal party and a socially progressive socialist party.

pack the courts,

Or we could just like not do that.

get started with a social democratic plan for the united states

This would require the progressive wing of the Democrats to dramatically change their stance on regulations and corporate taxation because their model is probably closer to Labour (UK) than to the Nordic Model or Rhine Capitalism.

while rebuilding alliances with the world's democracies asap

Honestly, why do we even need alliances with democracies when we're not even standing together against oligarchies or autocracies in a meaningful way? Spreading democracy has been an ugly, brutish process that often overlooked local political cultures and attitudes. We can't keep the Germans from bolstering the Russian petroleum industry. The French have demonstrated a pretty open disregard both for our alliances and for our laws in some instances.